Δευτέρα, 17 Οκτωβρίου 2016

Washington post

By Nick DanforthOctober 17

Residents
inspect a damaged site after an airstrike in the rebel-held al-Qaterji
neighborhood of Aleppo, Syria, on Oct. 14. (Abdalrhman Ismail/Reuters)

In
Washington’s ongoing debate about the cause of the continuing chaos in
the Middle East, President George W. Bush stands condemned for the 2003
intervention that pushed Iraq into civil war, while President Obama
stands condemned for the nonintervention that worsened Syria’s civil
war. In Libya, meanwhile, Washington’s partial intervention also failed
to bring peace, while too few Americans are even aware of their
country’s role in the conflict afflicting Yemen.Without trying
to defend or absolve U.S. policy, then, it is worth stepping back to ask
what shared historical experiences might have left these four countries
— Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen — particularly at risk of violent
collapse. The following maps help highlight how, at various points over
the past century, historical circumstances conspired, in an often
self-reinforcing way, to bolster the stability of some states in the
region while undermining that of others.1. Century-old states are more stable today

(Nick Danforth/Bipartisan Policy Center)

Countries
whose political or geographic precedents stretch back over a century
are more stable today. Turkey, Egypt, Iran, and, to some extent, the
ruling dynasties of what are now Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman and the
United Arab Emirates, all, in one form or another, trace their current
political structures to the late 19th century,
before European colonialism took root in the region. Consequently, they
were more likely to have the resources to maintain some independence in
the face of European imperialism, or at least negotiate a less
disruptive form of colonial rule.Turkey, most vividly, escaped
colonization at the beginning of the 20th century because the already
extant Ottoman army defeated a number of would-be colonizers: first
during World War I and then after the empire’s dissolution in Turkey’s
subsequent war for independence.Iran, meanwhile, was divided into informal spheres of influence by the British and Russians in the late 19th century but avoided formal colonization and initially kept the Qajar dynasty in power.And
Egypt, a British protectorate for several decades, became the first
country in the region to achieve nominal independence in 1922, under the
same dynasty that had established the Egyptian state more than a
century earlier.As a result, both Iran and Egypt had ruling
institutions predating European colonial influence that subsequently
remained in place. In both countries, local politics were, to a greater
degree than elsewhere, allowed to continue,
subject to external constraint and correction. Meanwhile, the far
smaller dynasties of the Persian Gulf became protectorates of the
British Empire on mutually beneficial terms, creating symbiotic
relationships in which the British provided military support and trade
opportunities that left these regimes stronger and wealthier than they
were before.2. Colonial rule led to fragile states

(Nick Danforth/Bipartisan Policy Center)

In
contrast to these preexisting polities, countries such as Syria, Iraq,
Libya and Lebanon came into being in the early 20th century complete
with new borders and hastily formed governments set up by their colonial
rulers. From the outset, these puppet governments lacked the legitimacy
or popular support of those indigenous rulers, who, however
unwillingly, had come under the influence of colonial powers.
Unsurprisingly, all of these countries beside Lebanon soon experienced
widespread and violent anti-colonial rebellions.The consequences
of these seminal conflicts persisted through the century. After
occupying Libya in 1911, Italy suppressed resistance from local
guerrilla fighters only after a decades-long military campaign that
employed starvation, mass deportation and concentration camps. Britain,
meanwhile, put down Iraq’s 1920 revolt with the help of extensive air
power, then dropped poison gas on Kurdish tribes that continued
resisting. And in Syria, a massive revolt in 1925 ended with French
artillery shelling Damascus.In each case, colonial powers also
triumphed by recruiting local allies along ethnic or tribal lines to
fight on their side against the rebels. In Syria, the French drew
support from Christian and Alawite communities. In Iraq, key Sunni
tribes cooperated with the British against rebels in return for
political and financial rewards. As a result, these revolts deepened
social divisions within these countries and stripped governing
institutions of their legitimacy at the moment of inception.The
consequences of these unstable foundations were often fully felt only in
the aftermath of independence. After the Iraqi revolt, the British
installed King Faisal I to rule the country on their behalf, hoping he
would mitigate nationalist anger toward colonial rule. Faisal’s family
maintained its throne with British support until 1958, when Faisal’s
grandson was overthrown and executed in a military coup.3. Instability and regime change

(Nick Danforth/Bipartisan Policy Center)

Observers have often noted that
the Middle East’s long-standing monarchies appear significantly more
stable than its republics. But this reading mistakes cause for effect.
Libya and Iraq, along with Iran, Egypt, and Turkey, were all originally
monarchies as well, at least until these monarchies proved too unstable
to survive. Perhaps, then, it’s more accurate to say that the region’s
unstable monarchies fell, while those in more stable countries were the
only ones to survive.In the 1940s and 1950s, the endurance of
monarchies in the Middle East was inseparable from Cold War politics.
While American officials often had deep reservations about British
colonialism, with the start of the Cold War many concluded that
maintaining British influence was preferable to the risk of Soviet
infiltration. As a result, pro-British rulers like the shah of Iran,
Faisal II in Iraq and King Farouk in Egypt became crucial elements of
Anglo-American efforts to contain Soviet influence in the region.When
these regimes fell — Iran’s in 1979, Iraq’s in 1958, Egypt’s in 1952 —
these countries moved away from their alliances with the West. Libya,
too, followed a similar pattern when Moammar Gaddafi toppled King Idris,
who, despite his impeccable anti-colonial credentials, was tainted by
his pro-Western political orientation. In Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the
Persian Gulf, by contrast, pro-Western monarchies survived and kept
their countries in the Western orbit throughout the Cold War.4. The shadow of the Cold War

(Nick Danforth/Bipartisan Policy Center)

One
of the most striking historical correlations is between countries
enduring civil war today and those that, to varying degrees, leaned
toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War. But what is the
relationship between Iraq, Syria, Libya and at least part of Yemen’s
pro-Soviet geopolitics and their current chaos?First, the
political challenges some states faced may have left them predisposed to
both instability and siding with the Soviets. To the extent that at the
outset of the Cold War countries — both their regimes and their
populations — were content with and, therefore, invested in maintaining
the status quo, they were more likely to side with the West. Thus,
monarchies across the region that benefited from their relationship with
the British stayed with the West, while Turkey, having secured its
independence, saw Western support as a way to maintain it against the
risk of Soviet expansion. Where these regimes maintained the consent, or
at least obedience, of the societies they governed, as in Jordan, the
gulf states, or Turkey, this orientation remained. Conversely, in
countries such as Iraq, Syria and Egypt, widespread popular resentment
of the status quo and the regimes that enforced it both increased the
likelihood of political instability and the appeal of the Soviet Union
as an ally.At the same time, many countries that stayed within
the Western camp experienced follow-on benefits that contributed to
their stability, while those that tried to leave often suffered as a
result. The United States offered economic and technical aid to its
allies far in excess of what the Soviet Union could offer, for example.
These allies were also integrated into the global economy, often quite
successfully, while those that defied the West, such as Iran or Iraq,
ended up hobbled by sanctions.Western military support played an
important role, as well. The British sent troops to prop up the
Jordanian monarchy in 1958, while three decades before Operation Desert
Storm, British military intervention helped protect Kuwait from Iraqi
invasion in 1961. And, again, there could be violently destabilizing
consequences for those that sought to escape the Western orbit. Notably,
the United States supported coups against governments in both Syria and
Iran that Washington feared would take their countries in a pro-Soviet
direction.There is also an ideological dimension to all of this.
Washington has long been willing to turn a blind eye toward
authoritarian behavior from regimes it has supported in the Middle East.
Still, the Baathist regimes in Syria and Iraq, as well as the Gaddafi
regime in Libya, displayed a degree of totalitarian ambition and
systematic brutality that set them apart from other regimes in the
region. Saddam Hussein demonstrated that, as a source of ideological
inspiration, Stalinism is not conducive to stability.At the
outset of the 20th century, then, neither Iraq, Syria, Libya nor Yemen
existed as states or governments in their current form. All four then
experienced direct colonial rule between World Wars I and II and
subsequently overthrew their governing regimes in the postwar period.
Finally, these four countries all ended up, to greater or lesser
degrees, on the losing side of the Cold War.But alongside these
patterns, readers have almost certainly noticed the equally striking
exceptions at every stage along the way. So while it is easy to predict
that the violence currently afflicting Iraq, Syria Libya and Yemen will
leave a legacy of instability moving forward, exploring the continuities
of history can serve as a first step toward escaping from them.